Yet there is no present except as the result of past. Arguing causally, we can only come to the conclusion that today is based upon something; all things have their history.
Causally, the "evolution of the west" is a function of history; both its retelling and its result. Furthermore, the Will to Power is itself the result (as Nietzsche would have argued) of a specific historical process during which the idea of a unified "west" or of "nations" dissolves. On a further historical note, the law of conservation of energy cited in your response was formulated prior to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to which it does not fully apply.
Causality and the evolution of consciousness has no direction. Furthermore, the historical analysis of democracy as a means of structuring society indicates that it takes form in different ways in different places and times. The idea that Christianity was most suited to empire is not entirely accurate; in fact, one might argue that Constantine molded the religion through the mechanisms of power available to him, rather than seizing on it in an organic state.
The fundamental flaw of your "division of church and state" argument is that these two political authorities have never been clearly distinct from one another; democracy does not require that religion be separate from state (Israel is a primary example, as it acknowledges Judaism as its state religion yet regularly holds elections). Similarly, we may understand that the explicit divisions may mask implicit integrations, thus merely delimiting the means by which religion influences the state rather than the potential for it to influence the state.
I also find that your argument suffers from what Rorty noted of Foucault, that "there is a crippling ambiguity" between "power as a neutral, descriptive term" and "power as a pejorative term." Power is not only a limiting force. It can also be a constructive one; thus the character of a social construct need not be explicitly one of policing, but also constructive of certain types of behaviors.
History is the explanation of the way things have become rather than "wie sie eigentlich gewesen sind," because nothing can be understood without bringing it into the present. Morality has only so much agency as those who create and exercise the power by which it constrains and constructs. Indeed, the concept of a distinct unified morality becomes an illusion in a nihilistic sense. Yet I am not a nihilist. I am a pragmatist. Morality as such is too limited by context to be a useful analytic. Overall, the nihilistic proposal you have given seems a limited one rooted in a misinterpretation of the divisions within time; past, present, and future are all part of one and the same structure. History is not a description because it cannot describe what was, but only what remains. Yet your assertion on the evolution of the West is itself a historical narrative.
